"Don't look now, but while our best conservative is running a political campaign, Trump is leading a rebellion. Not as a liberal or a conservative politician, but as a successful red-blooded, can-do American capitalist.", Jim Robinson
Posted on 01/26/2016 7:10:54 AM PST by Theo
When the publisher of National Review Magazine, Jack Fowler, called and asked me to write 300 words on why I oppose Donald Trump for president of the United States, my first thought was about the derision that was sure to come from Trump supporters.
I was not disappointed, or rather I am disappointed that no one who reacted negatively rebutted any of the arguments I, or the other contributors, made about why we think a President Trump would not pursue conservative goals.
Sounding like Trump, I was called a "loser" and someone for whom one writer said he had "lost all respect." Sure, there were some who called me "brilliant" (I'm filing those away), but the name-callers resembled their political master. Trump also refused to address our arguments. Instead, he mislabeled the magazine a "dying newspaper" and said it had lost circulation and no one reads it. Many are reading this issue.
One friend said he is convinced that Trump is "teachable and we can move him in the right direction." On June 14, Trump will be 70 years old. By then, most people have long been settled in their worldview. Trump likes to cite Ronald Reagan, who was a Roosevelt Democrat before he famously said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left him. But Reagan spent many years honing his conservative principles in speeches, articles, and radio commentaries. He did not have, as some nominees to high office experience, a "confirmation conversion."
Quoting myself would be redundant (read us all at National Review.com), so here is the key paragraph from the lead editorial:
"Trump's politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Trump has shown no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution. He floats the idea of massive new taxes on imported goods and threatens to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste. His obsession is with 'winning,' regardless of the means -- a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power."
In the February 1 issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes writes: "The Republican frontrunner is a longtime liberal whose worldview might best be described as an amalgam of pop-culture progressivism and vulgar nationalism. His campaign rallies are orgies of self-absorption, dominated by juvenile insults of those who criticize him and endless boasting about his poll numbers. He's a narcissist and a huckster, an opportunist who not only failed to join conservatives in the big fights about the size and scope of government over the past several decades but, to the extent he was even aware of such battles, was often funding the other side, with a long list of contributions to the liberals most responsible for the dire state of affairs in the country, including likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."
What is the counter argument to these substantive opinions? Anger against the "Washington establishment" is not one. Those who worship Trump have an obligation to say why he is worthy of their faith. Given his liberal background and poor explanations of why he now believes differently, how do his supporters know he will govern conservatively should he win the White House? He once said his sister, who is pro-abortion, would be an excellent nominee to the Supreme Court. His story of how he supposedly became a pro-life convert lacks credibility.
Electing a president, especially in a dangerous world, is important work. Anger and emotion should not govern the choice. Considered judgment should. Trump appeals to the former, but not the latter.
I’m a Cruz guy, but I trust Trump(along with Cruz) to actually fight.
Tired of electing ‘republicans’ who talk conservatism at election time and go to Washington and turn squishy.
There is no one who believes Trump is a true conservative.
There is, however, every reason to believe he is a one man wreaking crew in bringing the destruction of the Washington Mob that consists of our over bearing and lawless self appointed rulers who were elected by us, for us.
I do not recall any stories of Paul Tibbets being concerned if the Atomic Bomb was a conservative or not.
We are truly at that point:
-Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
-N U T S!
-Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
This is a battle to restore a constitutional government. We will need a thousand Ted Cruz(s) to accomplish this.
But first, we need to take down the Axis of Evil:
-The Socialists
-The New World Order
- and the Islamic Forces that they employ.
We must use the Trump Bomb, it is an ugly weapon, but the use of the Trump Bomb is not optional.
We must use it now.
There will be collateral damage, but such is the price of Liberty.
We will have to pick up the pieces in the years that follow.
Well said!
I am sprinkling the following on many threads today hoping it does some good:
Cruz is my candidate, but I could vote for Trump because I am hoping he means what he says about protecting our borders.
I really wish the Trump and Cruz sniping would stop. It accomplishes nothing here on FR, and I am convinced that some of the bashers on both sides are just Rat trolls. Tearing down one candidate is not a way to convince someone to switch to the candidate you support. It merely causes animosity and gives the left ammunition for the general.
+1
I am sprinkling the following on many threads today hoping it does some good:
Cruz is my candidate, but I could vote for Trump because I am hoping he means what he says about protecting our borders.
I really wish the Trump and Cruz sniping would stop. It accomplishes nothing here on FR, and I am convinced that some of the bashers on both sides are just Rat trolls. Tearing down one candidate is not a way to convince someone to switch to the candidate you support. It merely causes animosity and gives the left ammunition for the general.
I am sprinkling the following on many threads today hoping it does some good:
Cruz is my candidate, but I could vote for Trump because I am hoping he means what he says about protecting our borders.
I really wish the Trump and Cruz sniping would stop. It accomplishes nothing here on FR, and I am convinced that some of the bashers on both sides are just Rat trolls. Tearing down one candidate is not a way to convince someone to switch to the candidate you support. It merely causes animosity and gives the left ammunition for the general.
I am sprinkling the following on many threads today hoping it does some good:
Cruz is my candidate, but I could vote for Trump because I am hoping he means what he says about protecting our borders.
I really wish the Trump and Cruz sniping would stop. It accomplishes nothing here on FR, and I am convinced that some of the bashers on both sides are just Rat trolls. Tearing down one candidate is not a way to convince someone to switch to the candidate you support. It merely causes animosity and gives the left ammunition for the general.
"Don't look now, but while our best conservative is running a political campaign, Trump is leading a rebellion. Not as a liberal or a conservative politician, but as a successful red-blooded, can-do American capitalist.", Jim Robinson
How did I tear down Trump? I just asked for his supporters to stop shooting the messengers and actually comment on the facts (or opinions) of the article.
At least last time I checked, they refused to do so by the way...again.
And therein is the disconnect between Cruz and Trump supporters. Trump supporters trust him. Cruz supporters don’t trust Trump as far as we could throw him. That’s it in a nutshell.
Absolutely agree with the second part of your statement.
“Rehashing history? Maybe, but a man should be judged on the positions he has consistently taken over the last two decades not what he self servingly states at the moment.”
The anti-Trump posts here on FR are nothing more than comfort food for Cruz supporters to stop support shrinkage. No honest person can claim they are trying to inform the poor misguided Trumpeteer.
NR is even worse devoting entire editions to hit pieces without the balls to admit they support the establishment candidate.
I actually agree with most of your comment. But the automatic dismissal of anyone, media or not, who dislikes Trump is unfortunate.
Are there members of the media who are all in for the Republican status quo? Yean, probably. Maybe even definitely. But there are also a lot of people AND I WOULD BET a lot of the conservative media who just really don’t trust Trump. That’s it. He may be the most wonderful human being to have graced the earth since Christ (he’s not), but in the end, we just do not trust the man.
That doesn’t make me, or others who think the same way or ALL of the media the devil incarnate. And, who knows, we might be completely wrong. But we don’t think we are and there’s grossly insufficient evidence to convince us. Similarly, we are frustrated at all the people who are being taken in by what we are convinced is a charlatan. That doesn’t make you all the devil incarnate either.
“Trump supporters have already heard all about Trumps past.”
All the more reason to find support for him by so-called “conservatives” inexplicable.
“All the more reason to find support for him by so-called “conservatives” inexplicable.”
I said that their records are more conservative than Trump's. I am not aware that either Rubio or Cruz has ever proudly boasted of being pro-life and pro-gun control, or has written checks to Hillary Clinton. On his record, Trump is at best a northeastern liberal Republican who has never taken a political position out of favor with the Manhattan celebrity circuit.
Trump now claims to have switched sides. Maybe the conversion is genuine. I hope it is. I would simply note that a lot of people are buying a pig in a poke. There should be more caution and less eagerness to nuke anyone who raises a word of caution, which is what the Trump folks are doing. Probably because they don't want to look closely at the record.
I noted before that Trump is doing especially well with two groups of people. The first are the "mad as hell" conservatives, who seem less interested this year in beating the Democrats than in blowing up the Republican establishment. (And who are carelessly defining the "establishment" as anyone who questions Trump.) The second are new, unconventional, and crossover voters. Many of these folks are distinctly more liberal than the Republican base. They apparently see Trump as a dealmaker who can work across the aisle -- and Trump is now playing up to them, with his recent assertions that he is now winning a lot of establishment support, and is in fact the new establishment.
Should Trump win, one of these two groups is in for a nasty surprise.
These people are after Trump in any way they can concoct because the are against ALL OF US. If Ted were demonstrably out in front, they’d be doing the same damned thing.
To me, posting contextually anachronistic crap from 20 years ago and pathetically relating it to now is just that. I wouldn’t stand for it with Ted, nor will I stand for it with Trump.
YOU said it yourself “You just don’t trust the man!” And that’s the crux of the internal dilemma we face here at FR. I am willing to let things shake out as they may and you are willing to accept bullshit dated excuses of why you just can’t realize neither he or Ted are the enemy here. I want one or the other to bury Hillary where she belongs. Others here would be smugly satisfied that they stood stalwartly beside Cruz until the bitter end. No thanks.
At least Romney ran to the right of Donald Trump.
Apples and oranges - lol.
</sarc>
(Just a sampling of the liberal illogic that now permeates FR)
And what, precisely, would Trump do to change the way the game is played in Washington? He held liberal positions on most issues for most of his life. He now claims to be conservative. But one thing that hasn't changed is the claim to be a deal-maker par excellence. And the scattering of establishment Republicans moving his way say they are doing so precisely because they think they can cut deals with Trump, who they view as untutored on the issues and therefore malleable, while Cruz is too rigid (if you dislike him) or too principled (if you like him).
"Let's make a deal" is not exactly a sea-change in the way Washington does business, especially when it comes from someone who has been a chameleon on the issues.
I know, I know -- he's self-financing his campaign and saying supportive things about liberal campaign finance schemes, so he's not beholden to contributors. This should alarm anyone who understands the freedom of speech issues at stake and the left's war on the first amendment, as well as anyone who doesn't think self-financing billionaires should have a monopoly on high political office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.